Recent Comments

Today, we sent a Courage Campaign Institute letter to Judge Vaughn Walker urging him to approve the Media Coalition’s request that they be allowed to televise the closing arguments of Perry v. Schwarzenegger.

There was some confusion earlier this week over this issue, when the AP jumped the gun and said Walker had decided on the issue. However, the only thing that changed was that a notice was posted to the court’s website that trial would not be broadcast outside of the courtroom. We weren’t about to give up so we penned the letter. The letter includes the following:

As we wrote in January to support the request to televise the trial, openness and transparency are necessary to the proper functioning of our courts—particularly in this case because of its implications for federal law, state laws and the lives of tens of millions of Americans. This has taken on an increased importance in light of efforts by the defense in Perry v. Schwarzenegger to strike already admitted evidence from the trial record.

We believe that Americans have the right to know what is being said and argued in their courts, and allowing cameras in the courtroom to broadcast the closing arguments is the best, most efficient way to provide this level of transparency.

As this court and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recognized, 138,542 public comments were submitted in favor of televising the Prop 8 trial, and only 32 were submitted against televising the trial. The public has already demonstrated a clear desire for the kind of access to this trial that television cameras can best provide.

I’d be lying if I said I thought it was a slam dunk that the trial will be televised, but we will keep pushing for as much transparency, access and attention on this trial as possible.

I'm surprised we haven't yet seen a decision on this and other open issues in the trial–specifically, the motions by the D-Is to strike evidence/testimony and to admit additional evidence.

2. Kathleen | May 27, 2010 at 9:43 am

forgot to subscribe

3. cc | May 27, 2010 at 11:18 am

Oh I am so glad you are still up and running. I had a bit of a heart attack this morning when I noticed that the link to the Prop 8 Trail Tracker on the CC homepage was replaced by Testimony Equalityontrail. org and no longer there. I always went to this site the roundabout way . Not anymore though, it’s now in my favorites so that won't happen again!

You are so right. The only reason the D-I's did not want this trial broadcast is because they knew that it would be that much harder to do what they have done since, which is to move that evidence already presented and admitted as evidence be removed. This is the same reason that they do not want the closing arguments broadcast. However, as my mom used to say when I ws growing up: "Be careful what you do in the dark, because the daylight will show it off to everyone."

Yes, let us celebrate. But at the same time, let us continue to come out of the closets, let us continue to be active, let us continue to fight, becauase this is only the beginning. Let us prove again and again the truth in what Harvey meant about us coming out of the closet being a great tool to change hearts, minds, opinions, and open up people's eyes. We cannot stop now, we must go on fighting until we have closed all the gaps between those who would oppress us and us.

9. allen | May 27, 2010 at 1:15 pm

Who's got a list of who voted for and against? I bet my representative didn't vote for it.

Thanks, Straight Ally #3008. I am going to go to the link again and see if there is a way to find a state-by-state breakdown of the votes. Two of our representatives here in NC I know voted for it, and one against, but I am not toally familiar with those who are outside my district, so will have to find that type of a list to see who to get ousted in he upcoming elections as they come up for re-election.
I know we will need to work on replacing Sue Myrick. But we need to keep Miller and Price.

Bit too early to celebrate, Ronnie. You do realize it'd be up to the Pentagon to repeal DADT? The Pentagon! And they can delay it for as long as they damn well please? And meanwhile gay troops are barred from suing their employer over the policy? How is this shit sandwich of a non-repeal anything to celebrate? If this passes the senate, I predict another 17 years before we see the end of DADT!

Ed C, thank you for this link. This will make the campaign efforts here in North Carolina a great deal easier for us. Now we know who to work for, and who to replace. I was glad to find that Miller and Kissell kept their word and voted in favor of repeal.

And IIRC, McCain is from Arizona, so we won't be the only ones boycotting. But we should still boycott, just to turn up the heat.

20. Mark M. | May 28, 2010 at 3:45 am

Fluffyskunk: This is indeed something to celebrate! It may not be all we wanted 'yet' but it is certainly moving us in the right direction.
We can be angry and disappointed if we want but that won't get us anywhere.
With this vote it now puts the issue in the hands of the Senate……we will see just how they handle it ( A-hole McCain and all)
I also hardly think it will take 17 yrs for the repeal to come about. My guess is 1 to 2 yrs at most….once the 'study' is completed by the military investigators.
And no the repeal is NOT up to the Pentagon but rather Congress…..the Pentagon's role is implementation of the orders of the President and Congress.

I can't speak for other states, but EVERY Democrat in California voted Yes, and EVERY Republican in California voted No. There are some Republicans in other states that voted Yes, and there are some Democrats that voted No. I do not care what your party is, if they voted No they should be voted out of office in November.

Because being on trial fro killing your ex-wife and a man who was alternately portrayed as being your ex-wife's boyfriend or being a gay man who befirended your ex-wife supposedly makes you more of a man than if you are two gay couples who are fighting for your right to live your life in peace and raise your children as a married couple. Because it is still okay in this country to hate the LGBTQQIA community.

24. Ronnie | May 28, 2010 at 6:21 am

The O.J. trial was between man and a Woman….lol…. <3…Ronnie

25. Mark M. | May 28, 2010 at 6:45 am

Actually because of how the OJ trial turned into such a media circus cameras are kept out of high profile cases now.

26. Mark M. | May 28, 2010 at 6:52 am

Off Topic Questions:
When and why did the Gay community adopt all this silly alphabet soup?
LGBTQQIA

When did lesbians stop being gay and need a label of there own?
When did Gay start to only refer to men?
When did Queer become accepted as a usable term and not one that is totally offensive?
When did Bisexuals and Transgendered persons get lumped into 'Gay' (as most I know do not in anyway consider themselves to be part of the "Gay' community)

27. Straight Ally #3008 | May 28, 2010 at 8:02 am

I have to say, while I appreciate the sentiment behind inclusion of the "A," I honestly think it's not necessary. We are allies because even though, biologically and psychologically, we are not a part of the community, we recognize what is right and advocate on your behalf, almost exclusively to other members of our orientation, the frequently apathetic majority.

That being said, I use LGBT by convention, and if someone wants to use another designation, that is fine by me too. Bottom line: we started with "all men are created equal" and are slowly evolving to the point of "all humans are created equal." Equal civil rights for all!

28. Bob | May 28, 2010 at 9:04 am

Yeah for all humans being created equal, eventually we will evolve from human rights to spiritual rights, we are not just human, but spirits dwelling in bodies.

I like the term that our flag depicts, Rainbow People, as spiritual beings, in human form, we are found in every continent in every culture, when our tribe assembles, we are all inclusive. even crossing religious divides.

At our present stage in our evolutilon, we have bought into words that define us by our sexuality, eventually we could move beyound that

29. Andrea | May 28, 2010 at 9:06 am

As the resident curmudgeon, I can't resist this one.

When and why did the Gay community adopt all this silly alphabet soup? LGBTQQIA

Set the wayback machine to the early 1990s.

Subaru had just discovered it could market station wagons to gay and lesbian couples. Shortly thereafter, a vodka company ran a successful "It's not a lifestyle, it's a life" campaign. The taboo broken, mainstream corporations rushed to target this new market. The most successful campaign was the selling of Bill Clinton.

The "gay press" took advantage of this new source of income, and created "LGBT" to expand the "lifestyle demographic" as it was then called, in order to increase ad prices. Simultaneously, since gay men have the largest disposable income, all content was targeted to them. That's why women disappeared entirely from the "gay press" by 1995, and there are more straight "divas" than lesbians in the pages of those publications to this day. When was the last time you saw a lesbian on the cover, who wasn't Ellen or Rosie? Think HARD. (Let me guess – it was years ago, and they were the Indigo Girls)

The QQIA part has always been just plain silly.

When did lesbians stop being gay and need a label of there [sic] own?

After the AIDS crisis passed, and they didn't need us to play nurse for them any more, gay men started yelling "ewww…. fish!" when we went into the gay bars again, so we got sick of them and formed our own community with our own name. That was by the mid-1990s after the Ryan White funding came in, and the twain have not met since.

When did Gay start to only refer to men?

When the marketers noticed that the necessary approach was completely different. Gay couples respond to sex and entertainment. Lesbian couples respond to the same things straight married women do.

When did Queer become accepted as a usable term and not one that is totally offensive?

Sometime between 1995-1997. It was concurrent with the dot-com boom, had something to do with the S/M and Poly crowd being added to the "lifestyle demographic" – regardless of orientation – to make the ads worth more to absorb the dot-com money.

When did Bisexuals and Transgendered persons get lumped into ‘Gay’

Circa 1995, as previously written. The attempt to create a "bisexual identity" failed miserably and was abandoned circa early 2000s. The creation of the "Transgender Identity" out of whole cloth was a smashing success, however. Originally meant to cover pre-operative transsexuals, the advertisers realized that transvestites buy a LOT of shoes, and over the course of the 2000s, the "T" was quickly redefined to mean "clothing fetish," with the original intent completely overshadowed by a constructed (and totally bogus IMO) "Transgender Umbrella." Which should, ideally, match the shoes.

Anything else you want to know?

30. Happy | May 28, 2010 at 12:46 pm

OK, a quick thought on televising the closing arguments, and the trial in general…

Why is it OK to broadcast a murder trial (aka OJ Simpson) and all the attending parties thereto, and NOT this case?

I’m baffled.

(RIP Gary Coleman, you crazy kid you!)

31. draNgNon | May 28, 2010 at 4:50 pm

I'm pretty sure I don't agree with a big chunk of this response. while no doubt there was some market manipulation to capture some gay dollars, my recollection is that right around 1989-1990 some activists in los angeles were determined to take over the name "queer" and thus disempower people who were using the insult to inspire gay bashing. I remember it first aggressively surfacing at the sunset junction street festival in 1990.

(time passes as I websurf)

ok, it came from ACT UP New York. try looking at 'queer nation' in wikipedia. I remember all those cheap offensive stickers. I bet I still have a bunch of them tucked away somewhere. those of us who were bi and straight+accepting loved it. 'queer nation', you could just hang out together without labelling yourself any particular orientation.

anyhow sometime not much later I notice a bunch of high school students in various locales which I suspect are urban or suburban where the kids just didn't want to identify their sexual preference. it's too soon for them to say one way or the other. so they started self-identifying as queer whether they were attracted to the same- or opposite-sex. perosnally I think this was normal teenager hating to be pigeonholed by adults. but I remember a lot of articles by the flabbergasted mainstream press.

and lastly, as long as I can remember in my adult life, which pretty much reaches back to the early 80s, the lesbian community has always distinguished itself from the guys. the only time I remember really seeing them come together outside of pride, is for AIDS events and clinic defense. I have always thought it amazing and wonderful to see so many lesbians turn out in support of AIDS issues and so many gay guys in support of a woman's right to choose.

32. RebeccaRGB | May 28, 2010 at 5:14 pm

I'm pretty sure I disagree with a lot of this, too, but in particular: the "transgender umbrella" is anything but bogus. Yes, transgender did originally have a narrow definition: a non-op (not just pre-op) transsexual. As the community realized that there were many kinds of identities, it expanded to include transsexuals in general, crossdressers, drag queens and drag kings, and genderqueers. These are all distinct and definable (to an extent).

While gender in society is a construction, gender in an individual is not (and as a transsexual woman I will fight to the death anyone who dares say it is).

"Transvestite" is a very OFFENSIVE term; the media use it because they don't know any better, but as LGBT people and allies we should know better. I suggest you read http://www.yaygender.net/localresources/SGOExtend… and learn what these words mean.

It was a crossdresser named Sylvia Rivera who started the Stonewall riots. The transgender community was there in the beginning; they didn't come out of nowhere during the 1990's. They were part of the movement until the movement abandoned them in an attempt to pass legislation faster. It's only recently that the movement has welcomed them back. And even then, I'd like to remind people of the whole non-inclusive ENDA fiasco.

"As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities. Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise. An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community."~President Barack Obama

(me) I know its just a statement and not action…but I am humble and can take it as it comes….WE WILL HAVE FULL EQUALITY….so with this administrations observation of need for an official LGBT Pride month…lets have a Happy Pride….and I get to celebrate my B-day every year at the same time….see If I wasn't born to me Gay then why would my b-day fall on NYC Gay pride every 7 years?….IT'S FATE!!!!…. LOL….<3…Ronnie Mc

35. Ronnie | May 29, 2010 at 1:27 am

We WON!!!!!!….Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga are to be RELEASED!!!!!….eat that Bigots…FREEDOM AND REASON…STOP THE HATE IN EVERY REGION!!!….<3 …Ronnie Mc

Maybe we can get together and try to get them asylum in this country and then go from there once they are here.

39. Kathleen | May 29, 2010 at 3:11 am

First of all, they may not want to leave their home. But if they do, I'm not so sure we'd be doing them a favor in offering them asylum here. There are other countries that do a better job of protecting the rights of glbt people.

You're right about that. But if they do want to leave, surely tere is someplace they can go and be safe, and not have to hide.

41. Kathleen | May 29, 2010 at 3:40 am

Isn't Malawi part of the Commonwealth? I suspect pressure from the UK had the greatest impact on this case.

42. Ronnie | May 29, 2010 at 3:44 am

England said something about stopping or reducing aid and the Malawians depend on that support

43. Bolt | May 29, 2010 at 4:34 am

Why the double Q? Queer, and what? I understand everything else.

44. K!r!lleXXI | May 29, 2010 at 6:47 am

@Bolt
QQ means Queer and Questioning (some people are still figuring things out)

45. Bob | May 29, 2010 at 8:33 am

Wouldn't it be great if the U.N. made a statement to the U.S. about the discrimination against LGBT and whatever parts of the alphabet I left out , to apply pressure towards equality ,

I'm glad the U.S. spoke out about this, but it's kind of two faced, at the moment.

But I agree with Ronnie, at least we have them saying the right words, just got to get them to put those words into action.

46. Mykelb | May 29, 2010 at 1:39 pm

To broadcast nation-wide a trial pertaining to a second rate entertainer and former football star back in 1994, of which the facts pertained only to the families involved and not the general public, and then to NOT BROADCAST the Proposition 8 Trial is a travesty of our judicial system. Obviously, American jurisprudence is just as bigoted as America when it comes to general heterosexist supremacy. Shame on a Judge who is purportedly gay and shame on his cowardice in this action.

47. Kathleen | May 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm

Shame on a Judge who is purportedly gay and shame on his cowardice in this action.

What action? Judge Walker hasn't made a decision. As to the earlier attempt to televise, Walker approved the broadcast; the Supreme Court halted it.

48. Kathleen | May 31, 2010 at 3:58 am

UPDATE:
ORDER from Judge Walker "In the event any party wishes to use portions of the trial recording during closing arguments, a copy of the video can be made available to the party. Parties will of course be obligated to maintain as strictly confidential any copy of the video pursuant to paragraph 7.3 of the protective order, Doc #425. Any party wishing to make use of the video during closing arguments is DIRECTED to inform the court clerk not later than June 2, 2010 at 5 PM PDT"

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with the request for broadcast of closing arguments. If you recall, Walker did make a recording of the trial. He stated at the time that doing so didn't violate the US Supreme Court order, as the video was strictly for in-house use (for him to review, for example). It is this video that he is referring to here, saying that if either side wants to use portions of this recording during their closing arguments, the party must let the court know by Wednesday.http://www.scribd.com/doc/32275587/Doc-672

49. K!r!lleXXI | May 31, 2010 at 4:05 am

@Kathleen
Oh, so there IS a video of the trial!
I really hope that it will survive in the court archives, and one day the whole world will be able to see anti-gay bigotry in all its glory!

50. Kathleen | May 31, 2010 at 4:36 am

Kirille,

Yes, I recalled discussion of this during the live blogging, but just found the exchange in the trial transcript. It's Day 4, begins at the bottom of 753, line 15 (pdf file pg 22)

51. Billy | May 31, 2010 at 6:00 am

Same with Ohio. Every democrat yes, every republican no. Looks like I'll have to help the local democrat party phone bank this year…

"Missionaries of Hate" documentary available for free download from Current TV's Vanguard program…it's the documentary about Scott Lively, Ex-gays, The American Evangelicals, and Uganda's Genocide Bill

HAPPY LGBT & STRAIGHT ALLY PRIDE MONTH!!…almost 60 years ago you could not count us on 1 hand in America..LOOK AT US NOW!!!…OUT & PROUD!!!.. EQUALITY & FREEDOM IS INEVITABLE…♥ …Ronnie:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEpqTIolLps&pl…

61. K!r!lleXXI | June 1, 2010 at 5:16 am

Just finished watching “Vanguard. Missioners of Hate” documentary. This is why I remain in the closet in Russia — nobody knows when, why and how it all may get worse, and some young hot-shot legislator would introduce a bill criminalizing us, once again for no good reason… and this is something that is happening every now and then in Russia, we're not that far from Uganda politically speaking, not at all…

It's not that bad right now in Russia, comparatively speaking, but I know people would be giving me same looks and same stares (as they gave to Long Johns from the documentary) if they knew… Well, they already do — when I'm lightly clad for summer, walking around in my very short shorts and kinda gay-ish looking overall attire; I see their looks, I hear them laughing behind my back, and just for a split second I feel this fear of being discovered and getting hurt for that… because in these people's minds it is acceptable and completely fine to punish me for who I am if I do not conform to their beliefs and convictions.

But, back to the documentary… Primarily, to Martin Sempa… Good grief! “Poopoo” eating, anilingus, fisting — this is what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms? Maybe some of us, but not the majority (at least, not the “poopoo” eating, I sincerely hope!). My very first comment on this very blog (when I couldn't be lurking anymore and wanted to say something for once) was to that very story — a story about a pastor who was showing gay porn to the flock in his church! So, I'm not gonna repeat my words from that comment about absurdity of comparing same-sex sex with what is going on in perverted porn movies. I'm just gonna say this: “Thank you, Mr. Sempa! The story about your unseemly actions made me speak out, and that was the best decision in my life because this is how I was noticed by a certain man who I fell in love with later. I really hope you'll know that because of you, another homo-love was born! I'm really grateful for your part in that! But I also really hope you'll see the light one day, real light of love, diversity and acceptance!” It was nice to finally see the face of the man who, in this weird way, brought me to my future new family.